Isn't the SIEGE Engine just the D20 skill system using D20 + attribute modifier + level vs difficulty number instead of D20 + attribute modifier + skill ranks vs difficulty number (since C&C has no skills)?  And with class abilities taking the place of feats?

Putting it that way, it sounds like it is, except you also get a +6 on checks against certain abilities, and level only counts if the check is something that's related to your class.

And it's expressed in a convoluted fashion, as JA says.

And it's used for saves and surprise, and the math doesn't work very well for those.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;503740Putting it that way, it sounds like it is, except you also get a +6 on checks against certain abilities, and level only counts if the check is something that's related to your class.

And it's expressed in a convoluted fashion, as JA says.

And it's used for saves and surprise, and the math doesn't work very well for those.

Actually, level always counts unless it is a class ability of another class (and it's up to the CK whether you are even allowed to attempt an ability of another class).

I agree, it would have been better for them to describe Primes as +6 bonus rather than the 12/18 thing, but it's six of one half dozen of the other.

- It has an insane, overly complicated, incredibly punitive encumbrance system; and I like complicated, punitive encumbrance systems.

- As others have mentioned, the plastic happy fey protruding-butt-fetish artwork is atrocious.

- And as others have mentioned, the SIEGE system could be way less complicated w/o changing the odds (i.e. the 12/18 business instead of just using +6); I do think that primes are a fine way of doing a rules-light skill system, however.

- Symptomatic of it's particular malaise, it's the only retro-clone I own that I don't cherry pick from or use as an ancillary reference.

I would have preferred a real skill system instead of the Siege mechanic. Keep it simple like 2e, though.

If you are going to use something like the Siege system, have a good explanation of it in the book. Include examples for multiple things, too.

I liked the art, but that is subjective.

The editing was really bad.

Quote from: danbuter;503762I liked the art, but that is subjective.

I think that if they had used multiple artists with variation in style it probably wouldn't have been so cloying/grating to some folks.

I does really capture some sort of vaguely Disney vibe.

I like his humanoids in general, though they do have a kind of "fey" quality to them that is different from the O/AD&D-B/X medievalist-monster period. The chicks however totally have a cute Disney pinup vibe I'm not a big fan of. And I agree: that perception comes in part from the fact that the guy does ALL the art for the game, so in effect, his art IS the game. That rubs some people the wrong way, especially when they are searching for something that "feels" like the AD&D First Ed they knew.

The design is sloppy in general.  I hate the siege engine which makes a guy with a three as good as a guy with an eighteen in all ways but attack rolls.  I hate the encumbrance system which is more complex than just adding up all the weights you are carrying (you have to subtract one for wearing stuff and modify otherwise to put it in a container).  It is particularly bad since the encumbrance system is the only balance to heavy armor and weapons.  The only disadvantage to the heavy crossbow is that it's one point bulkier.  So while it's not as insane as the 2e longbow (2 shots for 2d4, +1 for being an elf and why aren't you this is AD&D 2e?)  It's still superior to a long bow without a real drawback.  Or the nine rings broadsword, a one handed sword that does 1d10 damage.  Oh and I've got two or three different printings of the player's hand book and the encumbrance system changes in each of them.  There's the ranger's +1 damage per level which gets more unbalanced at higher levels and some of the other class abilities that are similarly problematic.

So, my complaint is that Castles & Crusades is insufficiently rigorous.  The art's good but not particularly evocative of anything beyond generic fantasy.  If you take a look at the game in my sig you'll see that C&C certainly has better art than at least one osr game

Quote from: Benoist;503772I like his humanoids in general, though they do have a kind of "fey" quality to them that is different from the O/AD&D-B/X medievalist-monster period. The chicks however totally have a cute Disney pinup vibe I'm not a big fan of. And I agree: that perception comes in part from the fact that the guy does ALL the art for the game, so in effect, his art IS the game. That rubs some people the wrong way, especially when they are searching for something that "feels" like the AD&D First Ed they knew.

There's a quote by HR Giger about how one baby is cute, but a multitude of them is overwhelming and creepy; that how I feel about the wall of Peter Bradley art in C&C.

And would it kill him to draw one woman who doesn't had a protruding muscular butt in skintight garb?

Quote from: David Johansen;503775Oh and I've got two or three different printings of the player's hand book and the encumbrance system changes in each of them.

Good grief!

I've played the hell out of C&C and even did an entire episode about it.  I love the game, having yet to really encounter the problems many other seem to have.  Maybe I'm just dumb, but nothing weird in the rules has ever impacted my gameplay experience.

IIRC (I'm not too familiar with C&C so I might be wrong), the SIEGE system generally means that the party Cleric will be better at tracking than the party Ranger.

Quote from: Daztur;503824IIRC (I'm not too familiar with C&C so I might be wrong), the SIEGE system generally means that the party Cleric will be better at tracking than the party Ranger.

I'd like to see someone give an example...the Cleric would never add their level to the roll, which means a Ranger always has an extra bonus.

There's a lot I love about C&C. The art (which feels like someone took the best of late 1e and early 2e, in B&W), the enthusiasm, their implementation of certain classes (Ranger, Knight, Bard).

But the SIEGE mechanic as written does stick out like a sore thumb (e.g. the already quoted "cleric > thief at detecting traps"). Here's a simple fix I've been thinking of; I have yet to playest it, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

• Drop Primes.


• Drop suggested DCs. Use the DC table from D&D3.0e or 3.5e. Seriously.


• Add level to ALL saves and skill checks (not just class-relevant ones).


• Add +4 or maybe +5 to class-relevant skill checks.

I might take this baby out for a spin one of these days. But you if you beat me to it, by all means, do let me know how'd it go.

Quote from: danbuter;503762I would have preferred a real skill system instead of the Siege mechanic. Keep it simple like 2e, though.

I'd love to see them adapt the simple, no-nonsense skill system of the criminally underrated StarSIEGE RPG to a hypothetical new edition of C&C.

Quote from: danbuter;503762I liked the art, but that is subjective.

The editing was really bad.

100% with you on both counts. See above on art.

The editing really is atrocious, though. And their cavalier attitude towards release schedules (even if you dismiss the CKG as a genuine blunder from Amazon) makes Palladium look like it's run by Swiss watchmakers.

The supplements I've read (Castellan's Guide to Arms and Armor, Of Gods And Men) were okay, I guess, certainly nothing to write home about.

I've never read any one of the adventures, but they look a bit... uninspired, if the synopses are anything to go by (blah blah blah ruins, blah blah blah goblins etc.).

As for Tainted Lands... ugh. The less said of it, the better.

With that out of the way:

1. I've been playing a C&C game for some 2 years now and I'm loving it. Mostly due to the GM being a great guy who's imaginative and comitted to running a kick-ass game, but it also testifies that the system, despite some quirks I'd rather not have, is certainly not "broken".

2. I am very, very fond of C&C in no small part due to the enthusiasm and love which shows through the Trolls' writing. Ultimately, C&C feels like an amateur product, with all the good and the bad that it entails.

Quote from: joewolz;503850I'd like to see someone give an example...the Cleric would never add their level to the roll, which means a Ranger always has an extra bonus.

In the RAW, all Clerics have Wisdom as a Prime, which is +6 right off the bat. With a Wisdom bonus that's likely to be higher than the Ranger's, that means a +7 to +9 modifier, regardless of level.

Unless your Ranger also has Wisdom as a Prime, and an exceptional (13+) Wisdom with a similar bonus, it'll take him anywhere from 6 to 8 levels to outrank the Cleric at finding traps and ambushes, or tracking, or just about anything Wisdom-related.